tv Rules Committee Considers Concealed Carry Legislation CSPAN December 6, 2017 1:05am-3:06am EST
commutesuse rules many as well as other legislative proposals. coverage begins wednesday at 3:00 p.m. on c-span3. you can follow on c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. the house. many considered legislation relative to the nations concealed carry gun laws. committee democrats pose a series of amendments all of which failed in the rule for the bill passed out of committee on a partyline vote. the measure will be on the floor wednesday. this is about two hours. mr. sessions: the rules
committee will come to order and thank you for joining us for a fun rules committee today. the rules committee will be considering the concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017. the concealed. reciprocity active 2017. conflicting state codes and legislations have created a patchwork of reciprocity agreements for concealed carry permit holders. citizens of a state issued concealed carry permit from a state that does not require permits can lose their second amendment rights when entering another state if that state may have different rules and regulations. they concealed carry reciprocity citizenses law-abiding 's second amendment rights do not end when they cross state lines. the facts show citizens to carry concealed handguns undoubtedly better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also a defense of others.
legislation under consideration acludes the fix nix act, bipartisan act to ensure that federal and state authorities comply with existing law and support criminal history records through the national instant criminal background check system. legislation penalizes federal agencies that failed to report relevant criminal records to the fbi, and incentivizes states to improve the reporting and direct federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are actually reported through the federal bureau of investigation. the bill contains a study on bump stocks that requires the bureau of justice statistics to report to congress within 180 days on the number of times a bump stock has been used in the commission of the crime in the united states. i would like to welcome the two distinguished summit today. one from virginia, the young chairman, chairman goodlad, and
ler, andman nad congressman sheila jackson lee from texas. we are delighted to have each of you with the rules committee to discuss this important legislation. anything he brought in writing will be in the record. before we come to each of you we will defer to any opening statement to the gentleman from new york, the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i don't think you people have a lot to be celebrating today. particularly this bill. under the leadership of the majority, congress has been a unable to fulfill its most basic tasks. there are no guarantees you will be a will to get the lights on this fight you controlling the house, senate and white house. this committee was scheduled to consider the resolution today.
there has never been a time when a government shutdown -- it looks like because this week for all the wrong reasons. important things that the children's health insurance program, national insurance program, the perkins loans of all expired. we can't get a vote on the dream fisa act is set to expire at the end of the month. with so many issues before us it is particularly galling the majority is handing the gun lobby the ability to write a bill we are considering today that would make our communities even less safe from gun violence. it was just a month ago tomorrow a man with a gun and into a church in a small texas town, killed 26 people including a an 18-month-old baby. he wounded 20 more.
one family lost eight of its cherished members. think of that. those killed in the attack was 7% of the entire small town population. this is not the time for congress to allow dangerous people to carry a gun all across the country without regard for state laws. yet under the bill we are considering today finally defenders and people with no firearm safety training would be able to carry hidden, loaded handguns, even if they could not otherwise legally purchase a gun in that state. let's be honest with the american people about the effect. violent offenders with loaded handguns could be coming into a community near you even if you reside in a state with tough gun laws. foundation, the police executive research forum all oppose concealed carry legislation.
hr 38 goes further. here this, because it exposes members of law enforcement -- law enforcement to personal theyation if i mistake question some as ability of the law to have a gun. don't you think that is going little far? does the majority went to make the members of law enforcement afraid to do their jobs? this nra bill is being combined with separate bipartisan bills to improve background checks in response to the shooting in taxes. this is simply sabotage. would pass overwhelmingly. not only in the house, but also in the senate. but a combined concealed carry bill may not have the 60 votes it needs to pass on the other side of the capital.
every day in america 93 people on average are killed with a gun. 1000 have been close to mass shootings since sandy hook, with three or more people have lost their lives. our communities are being torn apart. whether it is a church, a movie theater, a concert, school, the threat of gun violence is with us. let's remember very recently we had a massacre in las vegas. there are no sanctuaries from gun violence in america. top retireda's military commanders just this week are pleading with congress to do something about gun violence. they don't want military weapons
being used on america's streets. s andadly there plea those of the people we represent are being ignored because of the nra. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you very much for your remarks. i will tell you called misses slaughtered before this here and her help asked her for in making sure we were precise and doing what we wanted to do and she assured me it would be a fair fight today. >> is a fair fight every day. >> it is when you are involved. >> and u.s. well. -- and you as well. i told you i will talk about guns. and i did. >> yes ma'am. cinnamon, we are delighted you are -- gentleman, we are delighted you are here. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
memories of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in support of hr 38. hr 38 position is by mr. hudson of north carolina and is cosponsored by 213 members from both sides of the aisle. it allows law-abiding gun owners with valid state issued concealed carry firearm permits, for those who live in so-called constitutional carry states to carry a concealed firearm in any other state and allows concealed carry. studies show carrying concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates by deterring would-be assailants and by allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. regarding the effect of concealed carry laws on crime rates estimated wednesday concealed carry laws went into effect, murders fell by more than 7% and aggravated
a self-help is similar numbers. pleased this bill is being. nix hr 4477, the fixed active 2017. by two ofntroduced the and chairman of the texas delegation colleagues. the fixed -- ask make sure that state and federal agencies enter all relevant records into the fbi's national instant background criminal background check system. this bill will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns do not get them. the church shootings in charleston, south carolina, and sutherland springs, texas are tragic reminders of what can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the system.
our system is only as good as the information within it. this important legislation will ensure the information is complete and up-to-date. taken together, these bills preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the second amendment and ensures that prohibited by law from receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so. these are principles every member of congress should enthusiastically support. again, i thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. >> think you, jim and. this settlement from the york is recognized for his statement. > i appear in opposition to the act because this bill would not protect us from gun violence but would make is far less safe. under current law each state makes its own determination about who may carry a firearm in public, including deciding which other states to recognize. this bill but it is a rate the public safety determinations
that each state makes concerning the concealed carry of guns in public based on the unique circumstances in each state and the desire of the citizens. the standards and requirements adopted states there are genetically. -- dramatically. require live fire training. 27 and d.c. prohibit individuals convicted of estimators of violence -- misdemeanors for violence to carry. 34 states and d.c. prohibit those under 21 from carrying concealed guns. many states for have a and concealed carry by the abusive dating partners exceeding federal protections that extend only to abusive spouses. all the states would have their laws overridden by this amendment. the obvious solution to the
state laws is to continue to do what is currently done by many states, which is to choose which other state permits they will recognize. some states, including my state of new york, do not recognize permits issued by any other states. posted chosen to recognize permits release some other states, facing the choice on the strength of the standards employed by the other states. we should not disregard these determinations, which is what the bill will do. i will point out one other thing. there are bills we see every session, some of which makes sense and some don't, to override the states standards and subsidy federal standards in a given area. that is not what this bill will do. it is an unusual bill that will use federal power to import the laws of one state into the laws of another state. it without imposing uniform law, it would simply say new jersey is governed by the law of whatever other state it may be.
i don't know if any other law that imports the laws of one state into another state. although i can think of a bill -- the fugitive slave act. an imminent to this committee to address one of the concerns are just mentioned. more than half the states recognize individuals guilty of violent misdemeanors, violent misdemeanors, although not as will nots felonies allow such persons to carry concealed guns. permit the bill from forcing these days to recognize the concealed carry permits of the states that do not have prohibitions respected people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors. we should not consider this bill without consideration of this amendment, and allowing florida date on the others that would address similar serious flaws in the bill. at deeply disappointed
the version of the bill today includes the bipartisan fixed act, which should be a stand-alone bill. that will take steps to address shortcomings in the background check system. as the recent mass shooting and sutherland springs, texas illustrates, we should do more to ensure records are committed to database that comprise the i icks. it has broad bipartisan support in the house and senate. that proposal which would save lives should not be tethered to the foreskin series reciprocity provisions of these are 38, which would only serve to endanger citizens. the harms of the concealed carry reciprocity portion of the bill taken to the floor outweigh the
benefits of the improvements. i oppose the combined bill and herds a committee to reject it. that is not being the thoughtful and sensitive amendments my colleagues and i samiti to adjust the concealed carry provision should not be considered on the floor. i ask in the bill is made in order, the amendments made an order so we can debate the critical public always he issue in a comprehensive manner. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. alan to thank both are you for taking your time to be here today and for your comments. you ofirman, i will tell a lifetime member of the national rifle association. i have tried to pay attention attributes of the crime in this country. i have some background with my family being in law enforcement. i believed that or you have a police officer or an armed
citizen, you stand a chance to stop perpetrators that commit crimes. when they do, you have a chance to protect yourself, your family and loved ones. veryieve this bill in its instance is to make sure law-abiding citizens who believe the united states of america and the constitution would not find themselves in trouble as long as they are following the law. i appreciate you bringing this bill forward and i want to thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to associate myself with your remarks. well said. our sentiments are similar. i want to thank the chairman for working on the legislation. i have one question real quickly. , wehe bump stock issue clearly have a technology that
makes a legal product any legal product. i think all of us were surprised to find that out. that was a into it, decision made by the alcohol, tobacco and firearms people during president obama's administration. -- isrprised the decision our aim to get them to rethink that decision? it clearly ought to be summit outlawed in my view. >> absolutely, and i share your concern about the misuse of aese devices that can turn semi automatic weapon into something that is like an automatic weapon. we view this as a first step in gathering more information. if this is used in crimes, it appears to have been used in a very serious crime in las vegas. atfontinue to work with the
on what is the best way to go about preventing that from happening, and the study that is called for as part of this legislation is directed at that. i share your concern that we may need to do more. >> the gentleman from new york. >> two comments. i agree with you totally. this sole function of the so-called bump stock is to make an automatic -- a semi automatic weapon operate like an automatic weapon. we have banned automatic weapons since the 1930's. i don't think we need a study. we ought to be banning these becausecks immediately i have no function other than to get around the law. to get around the law. no one disputes that. probably there are not too many people who advocate legalizing
machine guns and automatic weapons. we ought to eliminate it. i want to comment on one thing you said in its the underlying -- two underlying problems. what is the basic problems. the other is this bill does not make a standard. what it does, and it doesn't make a judgment, but it imports -- the federal power to import any state into a different state. and to deprive the people of that state the ability to make that judgment. that is something wrong as a matter of federalism, not to mention a matter of prudence. the second thing with respect to what mr. sessions said is that -- we have run this experiment for 50 years. you look at the statistics, more or less the united kingdom has 146 people killed, japan 75,
other countries and the double or triple digits. united states, 30,000. we are not thousands of times for mentally ill than the germans of the british of the japanese. that would be a slender on the american people. the frequency of death by guns is directly correlated, and this has been shown by the availability of guns in society. say if someone has a gun, law-abiding citizens can stop a person without a gun. on occasion that is true. they can stop bad guy with a gun. on occasion the good guy will shoot the wrong person. i would hate to see a shootout between a good person at a bad person on the subway new york whole,ut speaking as a there is no question you can correlate the presence of guns in society, the availability directly with the homicide rate by guns.
how do you explain -- no other country in the world as a homicide rate by guns exceeding 200 to 250, and we do 30,000 a year? >> if i might make two points. with regard to your point with regard to bump stocks, i think we already having an effect because the department of justice just today put out a press release announcing they are reopening the rulemaking process with regard to devices like bump stocks. the justice department and atf begin regulatory processes to determine if they are prohibited. that is a positive development and i think it is regulated to the legislation we have before us. with regard to the comments from theriend from new york, fact of the matter is that the second amendment is a constitutional right that extends to all americans. the supreme court has held it
extends to them for the purpose of self-defense and that it exerciseo the right to that in all of the states. i would hate to see states make it more difficult for people to it isse that right and the federal government that is a responsibility of determining how one can transport a firearm across state lines. i think that is an appropriate thing. the people allowed to do this, the statistics are very strong that these are very law-abiding people and i agree with the chairman. will help toe fight crime and prevent crime and will be very unlikely that will create additional crime. i think just the opposite will be the case. >> i only wanted to ask about one thing but it is a telling clemson will be a good debate. thank you very much. i yield back. >> miss jackson lee had the
opportunity to come here. we got started a little bit under the processes he would be allowed to provide -- auspices that you would be allowed to provide testimony. the gentlewoman has been provided -- things in writing would be entered into the record. >> i think the rules committee for its courtesies. i think my colleagues are probably very well spoken. issue just speak to the of where we are. lot on we have done a the judiciary committee. we are sometimes charged without having collaborative efforts. the last week these bills were separated and the nicks bill was
a bipartisan bill. it was sort of rolled to the house and had a bipartisan vote of support. even though it is legislation i would want to be's stronger -- be stronger, it does provide funding to improve the background check system, which can save lives. magic,tter of overnight they conceal weapons bill reciprocity is merged with nicks. i think it all honesty that is trickery and unfair. well-known that democrats in many instances have an opposition to an unwieldy, unrestrained use of guns and therefore the reciprocity bill was going to be a real problem. we spent most of the day amending it. i am baffled as to how all of a
sudden it was so urgent to merge the two bills. we have a holiday party, but this could've been done in the days to come. i am very unhappy about this. the national criminal background checks is an important act. they can stand on its own two feet. it aims to improve information by federal and state agencies. it serves as a response to the recent sutherland texas massacre where was revealed the air force and failed to submit the domestic violence court-martial record of the shooter. amended to this legislation. i will not take a long time, but this is amendment number 229, amending the nicks bill and it will require the secretary of defense with a conference or review to submit to the attorney general records that are relevant to a determination whether a person is disqualified.
it would have a more extensive which did not happen with the perpetrator, now deceased, who killed scores of individuals. 20 people plus and sutherland, taxes. everyone was appalled. they were appalled at the violence he exhibited against his wife. but here he is, armed to the teeth, and in some extended way with the relatives of his ex-wife at a church worshiping. i asked my colleagues to support the amendment that deals with the armed services. i would ask for a waiver. if it is proven to be non-germane, i asked for a waiver. it is important enough that we must have solid some kind of trickery -- must caps off some ught of -- must have sop some kind of trickery to pass the bill. having been on the judiciary for a long time, i have engaged with
only tease of police -- with chiefs of police. i have worked with others who have been members of the major chiefs association, unique because they are responsible for --ir men and women who read patrol the streets. they are absolutely appalled. i will submit a letter from the chiefs of police. i have two letters from the reciprocity act, both
are simple. one is, this section does not ofly to anyone convicted stalking under the laws of a state or indian tribe. i'm sure we don't want to have such a amendment's that address domestic violence. sutherlandator and was a domestic violence and abuse are a hand here he was with the gun. the problem was that information was not sent. of a hatene convicted crime will or substantially same offense. get eventsble to because they sold guns before his actual review was completed. if that was not a person who was spewing hate, all of his websites showed it. he was able to sit amongst prayer warriors, a wednesday night or service in their church
seeking the comfort of god and he had, with his hateful perspective, a weapon to kill all nine of them. lastly i will say this, as i begin to say, the chiefs have concern about their men and women who patrol. one element of this reciprocity bill is the stops. we have seen traffic -- we agree with them. i would like to add community-police relations as well. they are concerned is how these officers determine the abilitycy and operation of these that they may have gotten from any number of places which are not the state. you will now burden that officer to get a microscope and be able to determine, what is this? traps orne of the
off-the-law in my state? the concealed to carry reciprocity act is dangerous and there are many other ways to provide protection for individuals traveling but more importantly, law enforcement has that privilege and i really think this is an excessive bill. to look at committee my amendments and with that i would yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i initially read that the department of justice is no required to have a license and that regard where the victim has been convicted of a violent crime. i have also read they have removed all age requirements for gun possession in wisconsin and 1010-year-olds now have gun permits in the state of
wisconsin. i would prefer them not coming to new york. 100 10-year-old snow have gotten permits in the state of wisconsin. i would prefer them not coming to new york. that gives me the shivering quivers. what ms. jackson lee just brought up, what was the impetus for law enforcement to press liability litigation to question somebody's ability to have a gun? >> it is not uncommon for false arrests to have that kind of matter. other matters where you falsely detained or imprisoned somebody. it is included here as well. enough toare brash ask somebody if they had a gun permit? >> no. detain them for
an unreasonable time while you do whatever it is you want to do to discourage people from entering your state with a concealed carry permit. we -- it in new york, scares me to death. [crosstalk] >> i know we can't stop this bill, i know it is going to pass there is no question about it. we will add it to the litany think. we are now going to all shoot each other. this is not the congress i have known and loved so many years. let me ask your unanimous consent to put into the record a letter of statements of opposition to hr 38 by the following -- 17 attorneys general, the american academy of
pediatrics, the american bar association, the american federation of teachers, amnesty international usa, the association of prosecuting print --, united to prevent gun violence, the international association of chiefs of police, law enforcement partnership to prevent gun violence, major cities chiefs, the national tax violence,nst domestic third way, and united states conference of mayors. i mention of with time we would've gotten a great many more. crunch your objection will be entered into the record. >> your objection will be entered into the record. >> thanks. i was naive enough to think 120 schoolchildren were shot to
death that would give people pause to say wait a minute -- two weeks before christmas when that happened. all these children thinking about the holidays and great things and then in walks and a man with the gun and he kills them. he kills them. the same thing with the people that went to church in texas. a beautiful little place there. and they all get killed, going to church. are we really going to live in a country where any time our family goes out to go anything, concert, school, anywhere, that we may never see them again? with this congress really wants americans to live with? because we are getting there and i will tell you, 67% of americans surveyed thought the gun laws were far too lax. what do you think they're going to think about this one? ranks this bill will encourage greater enforcement of the law
will hope -- >> this bill encourage greater enforcement of law. >> what? where does the law say we should all be armed? i remember when i first got here there was a place in georgia that one to do that. that is a serious issue. point out that a law that allows or should i say that mandates new york or pennsylvania to allow violent ants to carry guns because other states allow it -- >> how about 10-year-olds? >> this is not a permissive bill, this is a mandatory bill on states to say "you cannot enforce your laws as long as any other state has a law that is more permissive or lacks than ."urs
the second amendment, the supreme court of the district of columbia justice scalia explicitly set the second amendment right is not unlimited gunthat a variety of regulations are entirely consistent with the constitution he wrote, the majority of american courts to consider the question held that prohibitions were lawful under second amendment or state analogies. invoking the second amendment does not tell you that i given bill or right is mandatory under it. you have to make the analysis and they specifically said that to carry concealed weapons was not -- that the law prohibiting carrying of concealed amendments -- was not per se prohibited by the second amendment. at the second amendment side. we understand the supreme court aderstood that to confer
person's right to carry a gun overhat does not go -- you have tot look at the specifics. laws by states limiting concealed weapons are without a doubt constitutional under the second amendment and again, what you have here is a bill that does not even the exercise judgment of congress which would be an abduction his thing to do, to say we judge that as a matter of federal law where going to impose this standard on the states. it simply allows any state to impose its standards on any other states which is even a worse thing to do. >> i wanted on the record that there was a well-regulated militia in the revolutionary war that had its own general. general daniel morgan.
basically, i know for fact it was in pennsylvania and farmers who lived around the battle were allowed to come to the battle ,nd bring their own musket shoot three times, then fade back into the woods and go home. that is pretty darn well regulated. over the years that has changed. i remember when the second amendment was passed, we had a recommend them -- recommendation that said women can have all the muskets they wanted. dangerousng in such a movement. if everybody is not scared to death, let me tell you ought to be. i am really concerned about what is happening next. i never thought we would see this day. i move back. >> that distinguished gentleman from george's recognize. >> thank you. i appreciate the chairman before us.e bill
the truth is, this happens so often i don't know how you all have any hearings in the judiciary committee at all because everything you deal with is pretty white-hot. we don't send the easy issues to that judiciary committee we send the tough hearings. >> did you appearing's on this bill? they did not. committeeng at our report here, i think the gentleman's point i take, i am thinking about the hearing we are having. i understand his daughter is concerned about the 10-year-old in wisconsin. i don't know anything about that. i know the age to have a concealed carry permit is 21. if they are not 21, they will not carry a concealed weapon in new york whether this law passes or not. let me ask you this, reciprocity issues are hard. we have one in my home state. 32 states already have
reciprocity with us. that.y have chosen to do >> absolutely. they've chosen to do this is a negotiated way. take me back. if i'm a 16-year-old in new york city i am not allowed to drive but as a 16-year-old oklahoman i can drive my car right through times square with that. we regularly have reciprocity rules -- >> but the states have agreed by those. i do not think it was imposed by federal government. >> the attorney general? >> no. at some point -- the have great respect for second amendment, the ninth and 10th amendments, too. issues like this give me great pause. my friend from new york cited 17 attorneys general that opposed .his measure mr. chairman, i would like to cite the 20-30 attorneys
general, the highest attorney general in the land to supports his measure. one of them from the great state of georgia. i have rubbed about the federal government telling the states how to conduct their business, particularly when the states have been so successful at creating these reciprocity agreements but let me just read from this letter. therite in support of concealed reciprocity act of 2017. we share a strong interest in the protection of our citizens second amendment rights and we are committed to supporting federal and state policies to preserve these constitutional rights. these bills talking about, four 46, hr-38, if the what eliminate significant obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. i want to talk about how to amplify state laws as opposed to overrule them.
>> it would eliminate the rights of the states to eliminate those rules within their own borders. homage i suppose, can't think of a better word, two states rights, to the ability of the states to make decisions. we all on some occasion say, not here. the federalse statutes and other places. you won't. again, knowing can debate the wisdom of those particular decisions. we should oppose the federal standard or let the states to what they want but here we are doing worse. that one state, oklahoma let's say, oklahoma may allow peoplent to of been convicted of violent misdemeanors to have a concealed carry permit. maybe, i mean, some oklahomans might disagree with decisions maybe they won't.
new york finds it not prudent. conditions inhe oklahoma, but i would not want to violate carry a concealed weapon on a bus or credit conditions you may have less of the in oklahoma or other states. again, new york should make that decision. here, what you're doing is not only having the federal government make a decision, you are having a state make the decision for itself, which then othernforced in every state. which i said, since the fugitive slave act i am not aware of too many instances where we use federal power to say that the law of state a must be enforced in state be whether state b likes it or not. taking away the sovereignty of the state. we talked about before about the ability of the utility of
law-abiding citizens carrying violent weapons and misdemeanor are not. misdemeanants are not. by this law, we're telling every state that anyone who has committed a violent misdemeanor can carry weapons. why should we do that? gentleman makes an important distinction. it would not be accurate to describe this bill is one that takes the law of georgia and imposes an on new york. it does take license of georgia and asks new york to recognize that. >> it mandates they recognize
that license. >> that is absolutely correct. i am able to carry in georgia under the state of georgia laws with my carry permit, this law would ask georgia to honor my permit. it would require me to follow the laws of new york with respect to that permit. >> no, because assuming you are demeanant, the laws would prevail in new york under the spell. >> u.s. questions have not asked, so i will ask it. i have a panel here. that says i will not issue a license to someone unless they are of a certain age, i will not issue a license to someone unless they do not their past,nd z in -- is there a new
york law that affirmatively prohibits people from having a gun under those circumstances? >> yes. it is new york law that we will not issue a license to someone who has those issues >> new york anyonees it illegal for without a gun to carry -- without a license to carry a gun. the legislature determined people that committed violent misdemeanors should not be able to consider -- to carry concealed weapons in new york. this law says never mind that. comes from a different state, the law prevails in new york. >> licenses are recognize. >> not just the license recognize, but if a new york in upstate cop stops
someone from speeding work whatever and finds out he is carrying a concealed weapon and someone whoat he is committed a violent misdemeanor in the past, under new york law he would be arrested for illegally hearing a gun. under this law, he would not because the new york law is misdirected. why should you allow one state law of another state? we generally allow, unless the federal government is going to come in and say our general requirement has the following standards, which we do sometime, unless that indicates, we let the state determine what goes on within their own borders. here we are saying we're are going to force the oklahoma standard to new york. >> the licensure standard.
>> correct. under new york law, if i am 16 years old, i am not allowed to drive in new york city. i am prohibited from driving in the city, yet with my georgia license i can drive around. yorke legislature new found that was accommodation, privilege. craig stone to recognize the licensure, the traffic laws of new york continue to apply. >> the difference here is that there is no federal constitutional right to drive a car. there is a federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. therefore, the ability to transport that firearm if the concealed carry permit has been granted to the individual by a state that has been through a process that will make that determination, the gentleman from new york brought up the
wisconsin determination which is correct, that they have determined there be no minimum firearm.ssess a wisconsin is not the first one to the game on this. they are the 34th state to permit individuals to possess firearms based upon no minimum age requirement. however, wisconsin has an age 21 concealed carry permit. so someone shows up in new york and they have concealed firearm and they are 16 years of age, they are in violation of both the new york and the wisconsin concealed carry permit law. they are not in compliance with the law. with regard to your point that there are certain items under new york law, yes, it makes it very clear that while the licensing process is the determination of state residents , the state they take the firearm into whose laws they
must comply to with regards to how that is exercise. not who, if first of all when you talk about violent misdemeanants, the federal law prohibits people guilty of domestic violence which is a misdemeanor in most instances, they cannot have a higher arm at all so they can have it as a concealed carry. but of violent misdemeanants not covered by that stocking and other things, that is an exception here to make clear that if people meet the basis for carrying the weapon in their to state, they will be able transport it across their own state. congress has very clear authority to allow this. the first time we've seen similar language. i recall states that did not
have a licensure requirement that simply allowed concealed carry by their citizens as a constitutional right being left out of this rubric. i have a license from georgia because georgia issue a license. if i'm a license from a state that does not issue, historically they offer no protection to me. how does this bill a dress that? >> as long as you have met the requirements of your home state, concealed carry permit, you no longer have to fear certain states where people of been arrested and charged with serious crimes oftentimes not realizing they are doing so simply for exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. >> so for showing my drivers license, if i come from one of those nonpermanent states, that satisfies my burden of demonstrating? >> if you can demonstrate your to additionalst concealed carry, yes. >> concealed carry, the
gentleman from new york made a point, a very valid point that the supreme court has indicated that the second amendment is not unfettered and there is a proper regulatory scene that can be accepted. the chairman indicates the individuals carry guns to not have a fear going into the jurisdiction. this people of affair and the law enforcement officials will have a fear. you are asking law enforcement officials to do two things on the street. to look and see whether the georgia license is credible, eight legitimate georgia right to conceal carry. having not been a georgia police officer, being a new york police officer or texas police officer, our laws are very much like georgia. they would have to make a determination on the street. secondarily, they are to make a determination as to whether this person still complies with new york laws. i think they would be far willing to do so, which is if
there is a misdemeanor violent in may bey have had acceptable in georgia but it may not be acceptable in new york so let me just read from that chief of police of the fourth largest city in the nation, houston as relates. each state has carefully crafted its own law relating to congress weapons while has heretofore respected the constitutional sovereignty of the states, there is legislation now pending that would undermine the authority of state law relating to carrying these weapons. we strongly urge congress to reject the misguided and impractical proposal for reciprocity as police officers could not be expected to recognize legitimate or forged permits from thousands of jurisdictions. it would be impossible to determine which person is authorized to carry a concealed weapon. this is what you're going to face across the nation in spite of the 27 attorney generals and
34 states. you have to talk to chiefs of police and patrol officers. i am talking about individual patrol officers and i frankly ask to submit this letter into the record, mr. chairman. >> granted. the the: and i asked chief b entered into the record and also the letter opposing this vigorously. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i cannot believe we are here having this legislation is before us. as the gentlelady from new york pointed out, we have some urgent things that need to be done, to keep the government open for example, that are being pushed off. we need to reauthorize the ship program before our ships get access to health care. we have hurricane relief issues
to deal with. i mean, there are a zillion things that need to be dealt with now and here we argued with this. in you know, it is a little bit frustrating and to be told there are no hearings on this legislation. i mean, it is december, right? -- it's december! it would've been nice to bring the police chiefs that ms. jackson to up to express their concerns or others or you can bring anybody want in support of this legislation, but i mean, there is value in listening to people outside of the little bubble here in washington. i look at this end i ask myself, you know, how much in the bag is the national rifle association with the leadership in this house? this makes no sense that you are going to impose the weakest
standards that exist in some states on states that have higher standards when it comes to issuing licenses over those that carry concealed weapons. i look at the national rifle association's webpage, concealed carry reciprocity is the nra's highest legislative priority and this congress. we're here why today. i mean, we followed the money. this is about campaigning. this is about contributions to political parties and members of congress who are worried about the next election. but this is not about what is in the best interest of the american people. this bill we're thinking about today is led by four states to allow violent offenders to carry hidden, loaded guns, even those people who could not otherwise purchase a gun legally in the state. really? i don't have that. as pointed out, under current
law each state determines if it will recognize concealed carry permits by other states. currently 11 states do not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other sins. most only recognize concealed byry by states issued others. this is a race to the bottom. i'm trying to understand why anybody would think this was a good idea. the gentleman from georgia tried to compare these two drivers licenses. as i understand it, driver's licenses as far as they are concerned are standard verifiable documents with the same criteria nationwide. concealed carry, there are is no uniform standard and sometimes no statewide database. drivers license require things like vision, laws, in-person driving test. concealed carry, as we have widely ins very training and sometimes training
is not even required by states. you're going to impose as low my state?on massachusetts has the lowest firearm death rate in the entire country. i'm proud of that. don't square around with what went on in my state by trying to forcibly through statute lower the standard. i mean, this is just not right. you know? i could go on and on but you know what? this is a big waste of time. a terrible idea. this is about campaign contributions, not about good policy and with that, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from georgia. yes, sir? >> at the beginning you guaranteed a fight on this issue. our, to me, means not just ability to talk a pr means making sure the amendments like the ones that have been operative today and others be made in order. i hope this means all the
amendments that have been introduced be made a priority. thank you very much. >> yes? >> i tried to have the basis of my discussion with the gentlewoman about the time in which we would do this. the time of day that we would do this, knowing what we had with some accommodations that you understand and i do, of families being in town today. that the premise was, i asked her and she said she would like time to talk about the gondola and i said, you would be allowed that time. we are doing every bit of that. [indiscernible] >> we admitted that yesterday. [indiscernible] >> right on the floor. >> we're still doing that.
[indiscernible crosstalk] >> the judge is going to ask me to few minutes when i'm going to do that and i'm going to tell ."m "tomorrow >> i told you on the phone the other day when we would do that. >> yes, sir? >> judge, you wish to be recognized? the gentleman is recognized. will be asking that question in a few minutes. i will be asking that question. >> yes sir. does the general seek recognition? the gentleman's recognize. >> i started to go that way when i came back this way. >> i appreciate it, mr. chairman. first, let me say something about the national rifle association. every member of the national rifle association are not people
in the samee put others. as many of them would look at the same provision we're dealing have difficulty understanding why we're doing this. distinction in almost all organizations between the .embership and the leadership and, the leadership of the isional rifle association really, really a set of very cunning individuals who are support guno manufacturers who somehow or another get left out of the equation will we talk about these matters. we put it on the national rifle association but really we are
doing nothing but the bidding of gun manufacturers. i remember in sandy hook, many the were manufactured and gun association manufacturing association was less than six miles from sandy hook elementary school. during all of that, they quietly and iout of that area find that passing strange, that we focus sometimes on matters differently than in my view, we should. themcgovern mentioned significant number of issues we have dealing with. all of us awakened today to a highesthat one of the variable rates for hov driving is $34 toa on i-66
drive at a certain time on that highway. that is because we have not paid attention to all of the extraordinary needs with crumbling roads and crumbling bridges in our country. and, here we are talking about something without addressing the real significance of issues with reference to gun violence. i'm a gun on there. i want to make that clear because i always get threats and i understand that. i don't worry about the people that call and say they are going to hire me, i worry about the ones that don't call. me, i worry about the ones that don't call. permit to florida gun carry a concealed weapon.
in the streets, these can be knocked off and proliferate all over the place to carry concealed matters. if i have this permit, and i've carried a gun to a state that -- fort allow for kerry concealed carry compared to my florida drivers license and i won't even get into the falsification part. my argument to you is, if a police officer stops me and looks at my driver's license, here she can determine that i have a valid drivers license. but if a police officer stops me , how is that police officer with no hotline established as would be the case with drivers license, make a determination whether or not i'm valid with
reference to carry a concealed weapon? >> well, mr. hastings, as you withr. nadler have noted regard to drivers licenses, states have cooperated with each other but it was noted here that 10 states are completely unwilling to recognize the constitutional right, constitutional right of people to travel with their firearm outside of their state into other states or even at that state and every state except one has a concealed permit process, that one state being vermont -- >> way you do agree -- >> excuse me -- doreclaiming my time, so you agree there is no state hotline for example to confirm the permit is valid? >> it would be great if steps were taken to prevent but that is not a necessary thing. it was not necessary when drivers licenses were first
recognized across states. >> you me to tell me if a police officer stops somebody and they have a concealed carry permit, the police officer should not be able to determine whether or not that is valid? >> they can determine, but they cannot unreasonably detained that individual. >> geewhiz. this gets crazier in crazier. collectively lost our mind with all of the things that we say our gun violence. mr. chairman, i'm going to include in the record so we can put this issue to rest, i could spend the rest of my time dealing with concealed carry or nothing like drivers licenses, but let me ask unanimous consent to include every town and analysis. >> without objection. comescealed carry usually with codes of conduct, in other words of states want to take further action on a given matter
to strengthen the law they may do so but they may not provide beforerotections than established by congress. so first we see her today with concealed carry turns this approach on its head and goes to bottom weller's. states seeking to protect victims of domestic abuse will do not.deal to stay to mr. ranking member i want to make sure i have this right. by way of example, we have two states. allowing those convicted of domestic violence to carry concealed weapons. the other does not. under this bill, the state that quite reasonably does not allow those convicted of domestic violence to carry concealed weapons will have to welcome in person and their concealed weapon because that person's --te allows domestic abuses
of users to carry concealed weapons. is that correct? >> i will talk to you, jerry. >> yes. >> let me share with you all in of a countryement music musician -- that's right -- you said ranking member, the human mr. sessions. >> yap. i was talking to you. but that's ok. was country musician mindful of the hailstorm of bulletin las vegas and -- bullets in las vegas and he played guitar with the josh was there awhich
few hours before people were killed there. let me quote him. i have been a proponent of the second amendment my entire life until the events of last night. i cannot express how wrong i was. we actually have members of our firearms on the bus. they were useless. we could not touch them for fear please might think we're part of the massacre and shoot us. a small group, one man, laid with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help because of access to an insane amount of firepower. enough is enough, he said. now i work to ask you, mr. handle 50 how do you
people getting on an airplane with a carry permit to come to any one of the states. how does that work? what do the people with their guns and their carry permits do? >> they have to stow them on the plane. they cannot carry them. >> would've all of them arrive about 15 minutes before the shutoff time for entry? >> they have to go through security like all the rest of us do. drag so then the delay of air travel would take place? >> i don't necessarily think so. they would be delayed themselves from getting to the plane unless they have commas most people understand, if you want to carry a firearm, you have to still in your luggage.
you can not carried on board a plane. >> how about trains and buses? >> trains and buses have different standards but i think that the transportation provider has a right to determine that. >> hell about 175 people showing up at the capital -- >> they won't allow dan. -- they will not be allowed in. >> but they should be under this? >> no. >> why shouldn't they? a are allowed to carry. >> this bill makes it very clear that not only the federal government of the state and local government can make that determination. and by the way, as can any private business owner. so if you have a bar or whatever, you can prohibit. you can make that determination as a private citizen that you are not going to allow people to carry a firearm into your bar. know that the person had a gun? >> you can ask them.
you can have a metal detector. >> so anyone who goes into a bar restaurant nowadays are going to --?ubject to >> if the proprietor chooses to do that, yes. >> have you ever been to broadway? >> at yes. >> you know the crush of people like personally for everyone of those people to be carrying a gun? >> if they have a lawful, concealed carry permit i would feel safer than if i were at a venue where no one was allowed to have begun except the person who smuggled a gun in for the purpose of committing mayhem. >> would we as congressperson's be permitted to carry our guns on the floor of the house of representatives? >> i do not leave so. >> why wouldn't they? the rules ofds on the house. i'm here to talk about this bill, today, not about proposed changes to other roles. >> tell me why you chose to put
fix when with the next in fact that would have mine and your support and this bill is than nowhere fast other utilizing the time i'm utilizing now. >> i believe at bill complement each other keeping people safe because statistics are very --ar >> studies have been done in florida and there is a considerably lower instance of committing violence in the average citizen, even off-duty police officers. >> i do not have the time to help dispel that myth and i do
not want to hold up my colleagues but i do want to use the organization to compare florida to georgia, for example. [indiscernible] prove competence with a firearm [indiscernible] in eligible for license if within the last three years here she was convicted of using a firearm, not so in georgia. license would be design -- denied if the applicant was found guilty of any misdemeanor or clock crime not so in georgia. the state maintains an automated listing of license holders and related information.
georgia law specifically prohibits the creation of a statewide database of license holders which comes back to my point. the markup. several of my colleagues offer matters that would defeat and i find that appalling. about a misdemeanor offense to prohibit offenders who have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor in the past three years from caring a concealed gun in a state where that -- ittion would otherwise was defeated. ms. jackson lee offered at amendment to prevent domestic abuses and stalkers from taking advantage of that for reciprocity. it was defeated. an amendment was offered to require that an individual be a resident of state from which there concealed carry permit is
issued an order for them to take advantage of the bills reciprocity. it was defeated. offeredin of maryland protecting state public safety standards, a very sensible measure. the amendment failed despite democratic support and it really failed by voice vote. my colleague offered an amendment to ensure safeguarding of private property, asking that private property rights be protected. it was to feed state laws with age restrictions, mr. cohen offered that in committee. it was defeated. high capacity and musician magazines -- high-capacity ammunition, defeated. concerning and gun
possession, assaulting or impersonating a police officer, restrictions on concealed carry on certain beaches offered by my colleague mr. deutsch and one allow administered and managed by the army corps of engineers not allowed to have guns, it failed. animal cruelty offered by mr. deutsch failed. requiring periodic background checks and verification mechanisms, that failed. respecting the laws of the district of the columbia, we knew that was going to fail. hate crimes, with the increase of hate crimes, miss jackson lee offered a measure and we have had an increase everywhere in this nation of every kind of hate crime and yet we cannot have something offered and made in law a part of this bill. driving under the influence, background check requirements, all of these measures were defeated in committee and i can have in this, what we
this country is a gun violence epidemic and evidence bears this out and one would think it did not need repeated but then else and this one come before us if becomes quite clear that some blokes appear just don't care or are simply too beholden to to the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby. this bill without a shot of a doubt will make it easier for domestic abusers or stalkers to commit murder. more than half of women killed by guns in this country were killed by intimate partners or family members. let us not forget federal law ory blocks domestic abusers spouses, dating partners or convicted stalkers are not caught. many states have addressed this glaring loophole and moved to block.
this bill would needlessly eviscerate these sensible laws. in the wake of mass shootings after mass shootings, we stood a pound thousands and thousands of dead people killed by domestic abusers and this is the bill we carry? a bill pushed by powerful gun manufacturer law beers? lobbyists?s -- don't just think by strengthening you have done something clever. just because you add a -- of sugar to it dirt pile does not mean you have yourself something worth eating. i cannot even begin to talk about the disappointment that i'm sure many americans feel that we are here talking about gun laws with all of the
problems this nation is confronted with and not dealing with gun epidemics. measure of the study, we do n study. no dam what we need to do is stop that madness. don't give me that garbage about the second amendment. the people that did the second amendment had no idea we were going to be confronted with what we are confronted with an hour society today. things have evolved. in each one of these states you argue states rights until a become sensible or you are to do so and now state rights don't matter. you're going to override it. and each one of the states. i offer, mr. chairman, by
unanimous consent every towns analysis of writing concealed carry laws. >> i would like to enter the report i spoke of as well. i also going to enter every towns concealed carry reciprocity focus to let domestic abusers carry. the giffords federally mandate concealed carry reciprocity measure. >> without objection. tracks in addition, the mandated or concealed carry on gun violence state laws would be dangerously undermined. townsition, every analysis of overriding state public safety laws, which is really very clear. don't need to put in the reciprocity, mr. chairman,
all of the matters dealing with the report itself. obviously we're disappointed there were no hearings and there should have been for something to allow for different views to be heard. to put the kansas star article on the young man that i recited from his plea into the record. >> without objection. rep. hastings: in addition, someone fact checked chairman of -- i will leave that out. bob goodlatte is my friend, i like him. -- i think this is personified for us to be appeared dealing with something of this significance and not dealing with the real issues. no one in this room can make me understand why anybody other than law enforcement and
military people need to have an assault weapon. when i came here, we passed an assault weapon measure. we worked on that measure and it was done and now we can't even get altered weapons to be addressed. how many more people have to be killed? how many more people have to commit suicide with weapons? how many abusers of women or men do we have to have here before we take action and do what is necessary to address the gun epidemic. there was a surgeon general here . he literally got run out of town thatse he made us aware there was a gun violence epidemic in this country associated with a number of other epidemics that we are failing to deal with.
ofhave an open your crisis whatnimous proportions and we are up to her talking about is allowing people to carry guns all over this country into places. some of my people up and killed by weapons. because you are in a bar or concert or a theater, if people a gun, law enforcement is trying to find the one person doing the killing. not causenk that will problems, i can tell you your thinking is faulty and you are getting to lead further disaster. icom of 41, resent it. >> the gentleman yields back his time. is there anyone who seeks time? is there not? come myman if i might
want to reinforce the comments mr. hastings made which is again to raise my amendment on hate crime sent domestic violence. the rebuttal to the submission of the amendments is that they are federal law. my point is that this is a freestanding bill that should be comprehensive on two of the most backgroundects of a of an impending concealed to carry individual and would jeopardize the lives of individuals crossing state lines as evidenced by charlottesville and as evidenced by the military person who engaged in mass murder and went into churches and texas. should bemendment made in order and also with respect to a more detailed requirement of the military to submit data to miss the point i want to make about mr. hastings is the fact in the litany, the
evidence, the confusion that would come about whether it is broadway, whether it is that cathedral on fifth avenue, whether it is in the boston commons whether it is at the university of virginia, it is massive confusion for law enforcement to determine what we have is legitimate. it seems that every story of killing there is a sense of emotion. we were on the passageway of bumpng pump stocks -- stocks. i don't know what we can't have a simple bill that would ban these. we know what the use of bump so, i don't know if this puts an end to free legislation on bump
stocks, but here we are and i hope my amendments would be made in order, but i do agree this is disappointing. >> i want to thank you very much. i'm not trying to engage anyone. i think you brought a bill that is allowed by law states that already agree to do this. --o not have any presidents evidence that this is working. -- if you can't walk into a building, you can't say it is ok to walk into the state capitol texas, but you can do it here. respectingabout is
the person that travels and goes to another state and a happy fall ofto follow the the law of the state they are in. the laws of follow those going to washington or those going to dallas. i don't know if this is confusing. i want to thank all three of you for being here today. you very much. >> we're going to go to the second panel. we're going to go to panel to. snyder, good to see you at dinner the other night. i enjoyed that very much. thank you for your assistance
that we enjoy the dinner, but i enjoy the presence and your company. i know both of you would extend privileges. -- she is ae to knowledge and she may proceed. >> thank you very much. as all of you know, a little over two months ago, the deadly shooting in modern u.s. history occurred in the heart of my district. if the innocent people are killed and over 500 injured in the lives of thousands of friends and family members have been changed forever. in the two months since that time, absolutely nothing has happened until today, so i was optimistic that something would get done somebody said, i'm here listening to a testimony not about banning or regulating bump
stocks, not expanding or cleaning up background checks, but instead about expanding access to concealed weapons. itust really can't believe and i don't know what to go back and tell these people that congress is doing and how little they care about the plight not of their family and friends, but the hundreds that have been killed since that occurred. i sat here for an hour or so and listen to testimony that is astounding. we have harsh words about the difference between regulation and outlawing -- outlawing. we had heard ridiculous assumptions about how carrying a concealed weapon can make you safer. at the concerte
could not have been safer because the shooter was a thousand feet away in a tall building. , if this bill is so great in your so product that and you want to pass it so much, why did you not bring get as an independent bill three why did it have to tackett -- tack as a bipartisan measure and all the organizations to try to get a real problem. and frankly, that is why i'm here. i just cannot help myself. we have seen through the course of this year and this congress, this kind of behavior occurring over and over again.
bills change from the time they are heard and passed by committee to the time they get to rule. it is no wonder the people of this country do not trust what is going on back here in congress. friday that we learned that the fix nix bill which is fix the national instant criminal background check system introduced by my friend from texas mr. culberson, , was now suddenly going to be added to the expanded concealed carry bill. for no apparent good reason, it's just a matter of deceptionthat goes on behind closed doors. so my minute is very simple. it would just strike the entirety to have title 1 of the bill which is the conceal cardry provision. you want that, go for it, but go for it on its own, don't add it to our bill which is a good bill and it would also get rid of that so-called study of bump stocks. you've heard a lot from other people before me about the problems with the concealed carry weapon provision. i won't go into that.
except to say that my home state ofnevada is still the wild west. we have pretty liberal gun laws and yet even we don't believe that teenagers or somebody who has been convicted of a violent even if it's a misdemeanor, should have the license to carry a concealed weapon. mr. sessions: excuse me. there's no evidence that's been -- no testimony that indicated that that was a fact. >> titus: that what was a fact?
mr. sessions: children in any state are able to have a concealed carry license. ms. titus: in nevada the restrictions are at 19. in idaho you would be able to carry a weapon. i think that's a fact. mr. sessions: we're talking about concealed carry license. ms. titus: i am too. some states are 18. ms. titus: an adult. an adult. ms. titus: well, i don't know. who are in their 30's who don't 18, 19 is not usually considered an adult. you can't gamble at 18 in nevada. you have to be 21. >> but you can join the ms. titus: i appreciate that. and you can vote. yeah. but still, i stand by the point that at 19 you cannot carry a weapon in nevada. but you can move to idaho and you can get a concealed weapon -- carry a concealed
weapon there. mr. sessions: they're considered an adult, not a child. ms. titus: ok. at 19 or 18. but anyway nevada would have no , choice but to recognize idaho's law, even though it is lack than nevada's. so you've heard all those arguments. my primary reason here is to split those bills. these are two separate issues. the addition of the concealedweapon measure undermines the attempt to fix thereporting system, a system that needs to be fixed. and following the recipe of the judge here, adding a studyabout -- study about bump stocks is like building a monument. you won't do anything else and a study like this won't tell you anything because there's so little reporting of bump stocks. you want a study, come study those 58 crosses in my district. then you'll see what bump stocks do. so i just think you ought to split these bills. if you want them, go for them. consider them but don't add them , onto something that might do a little bit of good. mr. sessions: thank you very much. we're delighted that you're here. the gentleman is recognized.
>> thank you very much. thank you for the time to be here. i want to particularly thank mr. hastings for your remarks. i speak here personally. my hebrew name is samuel. i'm named after my grandmother's brother sam who was murdered when a gunman walked into his office in 1942 and shot him four times called the police and , waited for them to arrive as my uncle bled to death. my grandmother had 18 grandchildren. my cousin jeff took his own life. he dealt with mental illness for a long time and was able to get a gun. this is a very personal issue. mr. schneider: mr. hastings, thank you. i understand that many people come to this issue with their personal siblings. i personally strongly oppose the reckless and dangerous concealed carryreciprocity legislation that this house is considering
or preparing to consider. it's inconceivable to me that after more than 300 mass shooting events just this year alone, and daily gun violence in cities and communities across our country, we're voting on legislation to weaken common sense restrictions that are already in place. concealed carry reciprocity i believe undermines american gun laws by forcing states to accept carry permitting standards of everyother state. -- every other state including some states that have no centers at all. my constituents want gun safety standards to protect our communities. not to race to the bottom and apolicy that put more of our neighbors and neighborhoods and communities at risk. illinois has commonsense regulations on concealed carry permits. for example, if you have two or more duis within five years, within the past five years, you do not have the right in illinois to obtain a concealed weapons permit. in fact, a majority of u.s. states deny concealed carry permits to people with multiple the wise. this is a deliberate decision about people who often are simply too irresponsible to carry a firearm in public.
yet this bill would steam roll , over states' laws, allowing dy -- duiy -- offenders to carry anywhere in the country so long as they seek out any lowstandard or no standard permitting system that will issue them that permit. in a new study published earlierthis year, researchers showed that among handgun owners, convictions for dui and other alcohol-related crimes are associated with a major four to five fold increase. in the latter risk of arrest for a firearm crime or other violent crime. in other words, these convictions for dy are a serious -- for dy --for dy for dui are a serious red flag that a person is at risk of committing a future crime. states that have decided to bar these offenders have determined that they are too irresponsible to carry in public and congress
should not be overriding the decisions of these individual states. today i'm offering an amendment , to this legislation that allows states like illinois to continue to enforce their statelaws barring people with two or more dui offenses from carrying a concealed handgun. i urge this committee to allow a vote on my amendment. so that states can continue to enforce their own commonsense rules, preventing irresponsible concealed carry. thank you very much. ms. slaughter: i thank you both for being here. i know that you personally have dealt the grief of -- easily available guns. so thank you for your testimony. i don't give you much hope for anything, but nonetheless i'm glad to have it here and on the record. thank you both. >> as i said earlier, i think given the fact that there were no hearings on this bill, that at a minimum we want afair fight
here, and the chairman promised the ranking member we ought to , open this thing up so members have an opportunity to offer their amendments. i agree with ms. titus the idea that they attached a really, really bad bill to something that had bipartisan support just shows how cynical this place has become. as i said before, this is not about good policy. i follow the money. this is about money. this is about the power of the nra and quite frankly, this is another reason why we ought to be talking about campaign finance reform because we have to finally figure out a way to separate the money in politics from this system. it results in this kind of garbage being broughtto the house floor. so i thank you both and i hope your nimitz are made in order. mr. sessions: thank you very much. the gentleman from florida, judge hastings. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. titus, and mr. schneider, both of you were very clear and it's deeply appreciated.
i wish your amendments were to be made in order. i don't think they're going to and it's kind of -- for us to have good policy ruined by adding, as you put it ms. titus, poison pills. this is a very sad day for this country and it gets saturday with more deaths and us not doing anything about it. back.d mr. sessions the gentleman : yields back the balance of his time. is there any member that would seek time? i want to thank both of you. i do recognize that both of you of your timeit
this afternoon to not only participate in the full hearing, but to take time to offer your thoughts and ideas. if i could please remind you to leave whatever you brought in writing for our stenographer to complete her job, thank you very much. i need to acknowledge that the gentleman from ohio, congressman jim jordan, came and told me that he did not have more time to spend this afternoon, but that he wanted to make sure that he knew that i would acknowledge that he asked that we separate the two bills, the nics from the reciprocity bill, and that that would be what his testimony would be about. i hasten to say that without regard to making that available, but it would be his idea. he did not bring written comments. but had that. and i acknowledge that i would bring that forward before the hearing was done. is there any other member who wishes to be heard on h.r. 38? seeing none, this now closes the hearing portion. the chairman will be in receipt of a motion from the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i move that the committee grant h.r. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017, a closed rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority members of the committee on judiciary.
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. the rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-45 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. finally the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. social mr. sessions: thank you very much. is there amendment or discussion to that? ms. slaughter: yes. mr. chairman, i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee consider h.r. 4477, and h.r. 38, a stand-alone bills, granting each an open rule so that all members have the opportunity to offer amendments to this incredible bill on the floor. it is shameful that we are considering a rule that combines the text of a partisan n.r.a.-sponsored bill with a bipartisan bill to provide much-needed updates to the national brand check system. the fix nics bill will help close dangerous loop holes that have loopholes that have led to countless deaths and we should do everything we can to advance the bill, not sabotage its chance of becoming law. i ask for a yes vote. mr. sessions: thank you very much. you've now heard the amendment offered. is there discussion? seeing none, the vote will now be on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. ms. slaughter: roll call. the clerk: mr. cole, no.
mr. woodall, mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse. mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis. mr. chairman, no. three yeas, six nays. mr. sessions: could you please tell me how mr. newhouse from washington, state of washington, is recorded on the slaughter amendment. the clerk: mr. newhouse is not recorded. mr. sessions: ok. does the gentleman wish to be recorded? mr. newhouse: i'd like to vote no. mr. sessions: the gentleman is
requesting that he be recorded as a no vote on the slaughter amendment. could the clerk please re-provide the total. thank you very much. the clerk: three yays, seven nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed. to further amendment or discussion. ms. slaughter: yes, i have another amendment to the rule. i move the committee make in order and give the necessary waivers for the amendment to h.r. 38, by representative jackson lee, number 19, why which would prohibit a person from carrying a concealed firearm across state lines if the individual has been convicted of domestic violence or stalking. mr. sessions: you've heard the amendment from the gentlewoman, number 19, from the gentlewoman from texas, jackson lee. is there discussion? seeing none, the vote on the slaughter amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. noes have it. ms. slaughter: roll call, please. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall. mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no. mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no.
mr. sessions: clerk will report. the clerk: three yeas, seven nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcgovern: i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee make in order and give the necessary waivers for the bipartisan amendment to h.r. 38 by representatives moulton and curbelo, number 16, which would ban the manufacture, possession or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire from a semi-automatic rifle such as bump stocks and similarly functioning devices of a different name. i would just say to my colleagues, you know, the
kicking the can down the road or this meaningless study that is in this bill doesn't suffice. to too many people are dying in this country result of this technology that turns these weapons into weapons of war, that turns them into machine guns, essentially. i've been critical of this institution because in the aftermath of massacres all we do -- is have a moment of silence and we move on. i'm critical because what we're doing is actually putting forward legislation that will endanger my constituents. so i would hope that this amendment could be made in order so we could actually maybe do something positive. with that, i urge a yes vote. mr. sessions: thank you very much for the discussion. seeing none, the vote on the mcgovern amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. mcgovern: roll call. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall. mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no. mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis.
mr. chairman, no. three yeas, seven nays. mr. sessions: excuse me, i'm sorry. before we report, could you tell me how the gentleman from georgia is recorded. the clerk: the gentleman from georgia is not recorded. mr. sessions: if you could please ask the gentleman. the clerk: mr. woodall, no. three yeas, eight nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed. not agreed to. further discussion? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion from the gentleman from oklahoma -- excuse me. i'm sorry. i did not hear it. that is my issue. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. it would be an understatement, mr. chairman, for me to say that i'm not angry. i've been on this committee, along with ms. slaughter, and you, for a protracted period of time. i don't know a day that i have been as disturbed as i am today. and i've been angry at other
times. but i really am beside myself about what we are doing here. all of us know that this measure isn't going to become law. and ms. slaughter and mr. mcgovern have made it abundantly clear, as have all of the members here, that we have a lot of work to do. it's surreal to be in a setting like this and at the same time to have exacting responsibilities. in addition to ourselves, 25 of the members of the house of representatives offered amendments to this measure. none of them are made in order. this is our agenda as published and i ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record so i won't read all of the
amendments to you or any of them. mr. sessions: without objection. mr. hastings: at least have it understood that the parliamentarian, the drafters of legislation, all of the people have had to work. and here we come to the 54th closed rule. you've broken the record for the house of representatives. and i just -- on a measure of this consequence it would seem to me that you'd stand up and be prepared to vote if it's your conscience. then vote your conscience. if it's your pocketbook, then vote your pocketbook. but at least give everybody else a chance. the amendment i offered is one that was offered on that list, the agenda that i just put forward. the number is 20. the woman that offered this amendment is a former police chief.
and we have quite a number of sheriffs and police chiefs here on both sides that this legislation, if it were to become law, is going to impact the law enforcement community in a significantly negative way. this amendment to the rule, i move the committee make in order, and give the necessary waivers for the amendment to h.r. 38 by representative val demings. as i indicated, number 20. which would strike the provision that would allow persons from other states to carry concealed weapons in school zones. that's the amendment, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: i have a question. mr. hastings: yes? mr. sessions: is there any state that allows anyone with a concealed weapon to carry in schools or school zones?
mr. hastings: mr. chairman, there are states that permit weapons at schools. florida's legislature is prepared to undertake -- mr. sessions: excuse me, i strike that. i meant not colleges, i meant elementary, junior, high schools. mr. hastings: most of us have gun-free zones and drug-free zones around our schools. but i think mrs. demings as a form chief of police really understood the necessity for this particular measure. mr. sessions: yes, sir. the word schools i took to mean not colleges. mr. hastings: i understand.
well, florida also has a proposal before our legislature to allow school teachers at schools and other personnel at schools to carry guns. florida is getting just about as crazy as some of the rest of y'all's states. mr. sessions: yes, sir. reminding us that if it is against that state law, that person who would be offered the reciprocation would still have to follow the state law that they're in. mr. hastings: the problem, mr. chairman, is once the person is in the area, we are acting as if all of them are consult. the idea is we're getting ready to let people carry concealed weapons, whether they're caught or not.
mr. sessions: they've been doing that for years. you made the point back to me and i respect that. mr. hastings: some of the states that do, alabama, arkansas, new hampshire, oregon, rhode island, utah, these all allow carrying concealed weapons in k-12 zones. mr. sessions: wow. ok. further discussion. those in favor of the hastings amendment say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman asks for a roll call vote. the clerk: mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. burgess, no. mr. collins, no. mr. byrne, no. mr. newhouse, no. mr. buck. ms. cheney, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. three ayes, eight nays. mr. sessions: the amendment is not agreed. to further amendment on discussion. seeing none, the vote will now
be on the motion of the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentlewoman asks for a roll call vote. the clerk: mr. cole, aye. mr. woodall, aye. mr. burgess, aye. mr. collins, aye. mr. byrne, aye. mr. newhouse, aye. mr. buck. ms. cheney, aye. ms. slaughter, no. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, no. mr. polis. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, aye. eight yeas, three nays. mr. sessions: the motion is agreed to. mr. collins will be handling this for the republicans. mr. hastings for the democrats. judge, you want to ask a question? mr. hastings: what damage are we going to do tomorrow? mr. sessions: thank you very much. tomorrow the committee will be meeting at the scheduled time of 3:00. we're going to go to the c.r. tomorrow. knowing today was a time crunch, h.r. 3971, the community institution mortgage relief act of 2017, and h.r. 477, small business burden protection assistance act of 2017. this completes our work for the day. thank you very much.
meets to discuss a government spending measure. live coverage beginning at 3:00 eastern on c-span 3. you can also follow live on www.c-span.org and the free c-span radio app. >> c-span's washington journal , live every day with policy issues that impact you. al green discusses his plan to bring impeachment against trunk. a florida congressman will be with us to talk about the rising military tensions with north korea. and we're live in tallahassee, florida for the next up on the 50 capitals tour with florida house speaker richard corcoran. we will discuss sexual misconduct allegations, plus get an update on the impact of hurricane irma. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> friday, the supreme court
oral argument and masterpiece cake shop, the colorado civil rights commission. watch friday on c-span beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. c-span's student video documentary competition is underway and students across the country are busy at work, sharing their experience through twitter. ♪ it is not to attend her. our deadline is january 18, 2018. we're asking students to choose a provision of the u.s. constitution and create a video demonstrating why it is important to you. openompetition is to all middle school and high school students.
the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> next, a more in-depth look at the masterpiece cake shop versus colorado civil rights commission case. we spoke to elizabeth of the constitutional accountability center. washington journal, this is just under an hour. host: the supreme cour w